Anonymous wrote:This proposal is so full of holes it seems to me a distraction from addressing the issue of sustainable energy supply.
One such glaring hole is persuading the public that it's a good idea to have gigawatts of microwave energy being beamed at receivers on the planet from hundreds (thousands?) of satellites, any of which are liable to stray or get knocked off course, potentially irradiating God knows what population centres.
Another is the utterly prohibitive cost of public liability insurance against such an event.
A third is the predictably untenable money, energy & CO2 expenditure per unit of power supplied.
In the absence of global economic growth post peak I don't see who exactly is expected to bankroll such whimsy. In case anyone hadn't noticed, America is heading for bankruptcy. Broke. No credit-worthiness. Bust.
America doesn't need to pay for it. It can likely be financed by a consortium of private investors. Or by the Chinese, or the Japanese. You seem to think energy is "optional" for the future. It's not. The Chinese are not going to regress to the Ching Dynasty just to satisfy greens like yourself. If satellite solar power is economically viable, they will implement it. Doing without energy is not an option for them. In fact, it's not an option for any of us.
Ted wrote:Beaming power through space via microwave or laser is clearly more efficient than passing it through the atmosphere, and much more efficient than using power lines.
Ted wrote:100% beats 90%, no?
Also, wiring takes a relatively huge amount of effort to produce, install, and maintain.
No contest here, really.
Ted wrote:Beaming power through space via microwave or laser is clearly more efficient than passing it through the atmosphere, and much more efficient than using power lines.
Ted wrote:You have me on my 100% claim. Where's your 90% figure from? Does it really apply to transmission over global distances?
Ted wrote:Bet I can still show that transmission of power as electromagnetic waves through vacuum and / or air is more efficient than transmission through copper wire.
Ted wrote:MarkR and Small-Steps -
The key thing, I think, is direct conversion between electromagnetic waves and alternating current. Transformers, not rectifiers...
"Space Solar Power (SSP) is certainly a technological challenge," Hoffert said. "But much less of one than, say, building a fusion power reactor."
Both methods have the potential to provide baseload electricity for Earth for millennia to come, he said. But unlike fusion, space-based power generation doesn't require scientific breakthroughs before it can be employed.
"We advocate an SSP demonstration in the next 10 years to explore the technology and potential for cost reductions aimed at power for developing nations."
Where poetry and power might meet, the need is clear, the scientists argue. University of Houston physicist David Criswell, another author of the paper, has advocated gathering solar power at the Moon for more than 20 years.
"Prosperity for everyone on Earth requires a sustainable source of electricity," Criswell said earlier this month at a World Space Congress meeting. He said it would take about a decade to build a lunar power station and begin delivering electricity to the terrestrial grid.
The raw materials needed to make solar cells are present in the Moon’s soil, other researchers have said. Equally important, a lunar station could be situated to receive continuous sunlight, except for about three hours a year during a total eclipse, when stored energy would be needed.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 37 guests